One thing I cannot understand about AGW deniers is the acute resistance to change. I mean, even if you don’t believe we will run out of crude oil someday, it is to our advantage to develop the technology to increase the efficiency of the car. Even if your home were not a pigsty, and your landfills were not overflowing, isn’t it best to make sure your home remains in order, and that your recycle to make sure the near and convenient landfill can stay open as long as possible? What’s the harm?

Signature

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

One thing I cannot understand about AGW deniers is the acute resistance to change.

It’s psychological. Acknowledging AGW means admitting personal responsibility, which carries the obligation to make changes in one’s lifestyle. Living in denial allows one to carry on, guilt free, with no need to acknowledge that having seven children and commuting 50 miles each way to work is contributing to the destruction of our ecosystem.

Signature

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Are you sure your not being just a tad hyperbolic in stating, essentially, that a SINGLE person is contributing to planetary oblivion - and that HE must change his energy profligacy to have ANY CHANCE at all?

Are you sure you can back that up with ANYTHING scientific?—————————————————————
Let’s see: if the earth’s temperature rose over the past 40 years 1 degree F divided by 6.75 BILLION humans on earth yields an average of ... a piffle/human.

Should there be any credibility to the anthropogenic global warming speculation, I’ve read in some sermons that the entire population

will be responsile for the brief lifespan of the planet!! We must all change our habits IMMEDIATELY to alter the dismal prognostication. IOW, we must alter our behavior so as to manage an average 1.5 x 10-10 degree reduction/person in the rise in temperature of 1 degree F over 4 decades.——————————————————————————-
“Up, junior birdmen!! Save the planet, save the planet, awwwk!!” However, I am NOT one of you “true believing” paranoid psychopaths!!

Are you sure your not being just a tad hyperbolic in stating, essentially, that a SINGLE person is contributing to planetary oblivion - and that HE must change his profligacy to have ANY CHANCE at all?

Are you sure you can back that up with ANYTHING scientific? Let’s see: if the world temperature rise over the past 40 years has raised earth’s average temperature 1 degree F divided by 6.75 BILLION humans on earth yields an average of

Should there be any credibility to the anthropogenic global warming speculation, I’ve read in some sermons that the entire population

will be responsile for the brief lifespan of the planet!! We must all change our habits IMMEDIATELY to alter the dismal prognostication. IOW, we must alter our behavior so as to manage an average 1.5 x 10-10 degree reduction/person of planatary warming——————————————————————————-
“Up, junior birdmen!! Save the planet, save the planet, awwwk!!” However, I am NOT one of you “true believing” paranoid psychopaths!!

This perfectly illustrates what I was talking about. Thank you for backing up my post.

Signature

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

There have been various surveys or petitions claiming that thousands of scientists are skeptical that humans are causing global warming. The thing is, when you peruse these lists, you find very few scientists who actually have expertise in climate science. So what do the experts think? A 2009 survey found that over 97% of actively publishing climate scientists are convinced humans are significantly changing global temperatures (Doran 2009). Now a new study has digged into this topic a little deeper and broader. As well as covering a larger number of climate scientists, they also researched how many papers each scientist published and how often their work was cited (Anderegg 2010). How many published climate scientists think most of recent global warming was due to human activity? Between 97 to 98%.

It goes on to examine the evidence in a bit more detail. Any one interested in honestly analyzing real science should dare to give it a look

Signature

The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus is not formed by scientists !
The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus IS formed by the data being gathered !

I think before rising temperatures kill us, we will be suffocated by the increasing depth of GARBAGE - petitions and polls - of scientists/pseudoscientists/and nutjob scientists: or in in two words, lemming scientists.

I’ve read papers by legitimate climate scientists who have been and remain loathe to make predictions on the basis of seriously incorrect computer models, without which predictions OF ANY SORT would be impossible.

They have all had “skin” in the game, but as true scientists, refused to extend their conclusions beyond that supported by the extant data.

What you’ve provided, based on your bias, is STUFF ... more stuff as to who and how many qualified or unqualified, CLIMATE INTERESTED, clowns eagerly await room on the train for another hanger-on.

I’ve said it before and I’m confident of this one PARADIGM: science is NOT done by petitions and polls!!

Get over it.

If you live an additional 30 or more years and nothing remarkable happens to planet earth ... other than the predictable immense damage related to natural causes such as volcanic eruptions, “sun-spots”, violent weather (massively destructive hurricanes), etc ...

what will be your response to those charlatans that, as always, are predicting armageddon?

They are not now, nor ever will be, objective scientists.

And the increasing numbers of new skeptics of the armageddon-driven, global warming BSers, will likely be seen as the prophets. Oh, did I mention “grant funds”-driven BSers?

I’m tired of this Topic.

Unless you can find that ONE publication that presents actual EVIDENCE supporting a doomsday climate model, I’m no longer going to respond to you skeptics of skeptics.

Unless you can find that ONE publication that presents actual EVIDENCE supporting a doomsday climate model, I’m no longer going to respond to you skeptics of skeptics.

Why should we? Based on everythnig you’ve said here so far, you consider global warming to be a crock of poop, and that it’s impossible to show you enough evidence to even make you give any supoprting evidence some thought, much less accept it. Unless you say that you’ll consider good evidence, I’d rather not waste my time typing at a blank computer screen.

I didn’t read it all since its not a publication in a reputable scientifical journal and features a one on one debate which, in fact, seems to rely on information that roundly disputes he AGW speculation.

I might add that the paranoids spewing non-science have predicted doomsday for the earth unless there are massive earth-saving modifications in human behavior - fuel use primrily - within the next 20 years or so.

I didn’t read it all since its not a publication in a reputable scientifical journal and features a one on one debate which, in fact, seems to rely on information that roundly disputes he AGW speculation.

I’m guess you must talking about the Skeptical Science site and not my link in the above post -

Can’t get much more focused on the science than that page does!
===============

Analytic - 24 June 2010 06:34 AM

paranoids spewing non-science

Aren’t you embarrassed to be forced to resort to emotional insults to deflect attention rather than seriously discussing the trends being recorded by Earth Observation satellites and instruments?
Insults are the first resort of the unprepared student

Signature

The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus is not formed by scientists !
The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus IS formed by the data being gathered !

At the site you linked, Gerlich wrote the following in a Physics Journal:

“The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics, such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature, it is taken for granted that such a mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper, the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33° is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.”

I agree with his assesment.

The AGW conjecture has so little solid evidence to support it, I wonder why so few scientists - climatologists, physicists, geologists, statisticians - challenge it.

I am not a scientist in one of those disiplines, but I can observe that the putative “climate” scientists are not questioning the conjecture as my work, and that of others, has been critiqued for so many years.

I truly wonder what’s happening to our scientific enterprise when scientists would rather JUMP to agree rather than question the garbage being published.